Paradox of Time Travel in PoA

[davenclaw]

No: HPFGUIDX 132024

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> Another way to look at it
> is, we don't have two times, we have one time with two Harrys.

My issue is not with TT-Harry and the other Harry co-existing.  My 
problem is that the sequence of events that led up to the use of the 
time-turner are never shown.  There are actually TWO times with two 
Harrys, but one of those times is replaced.


> Again, linear time marches forward, at some point before Sirius's
> death, Harry or the appropraite time traveler enters the time line.
> That happens BEFORE Sirius's death which means someone is there to 
try
> and prevent the death. Since Sirius died, either the time traveler
> failed or the time traveler was never there.

Ahhh, but if you take that point of view, then why use a time-turner 
in the first place?  It is like saying, "if I were going to use a 
time-turner to change things, then I would have already done it, so 
I'm not going to bother trying, since I obviously didn't do it in 
the first place."  Huh?  At some point, the decision has to be made 
to go back in time - you have to realize that you have just 
experienced one sequence of events, and you have the opportunity to 
alter them, after which you will not even remember altered events as 
they originally occurred.

It is like saying that Hermione wouldn't need to use the time 
turner, because she would already remember the second set of lessons.

> There will always be a degree of paradox in time travel, we have to
> accept that. But in simple terms, the fact that no time traveler 
saved
> Sirius tells us that no one time traveled in an attempt to save 
him. 

I think this is just a matter of paradox that we have to accept, 
yes.  And honestly, I think it is a valid question to ask - just as 
Dumbledore had to suggest the use of the time-turner in PoA, someone 
would have had to make the decision to go back and save Sirius.  I'm 
guessing people don't generally walk around with time-turners.  If 
they did, the whole HP series would be impossible to write!

> Because of time travel PEOPLE can happen twice, but time only
> happens once.

Then what are people going back into?  The past that they already 
created?  What for, if they have already altered things as they 
intend to alter them?

I think that there IS a second sequence of events which lead up to 
the decision to go back in time, but once events are changed, no one 
has any concept of events as they originally occurred.  It is, in 
fact "lost."  And so, when Dumbledore implies that Buckbeak had been 
executed, it must be that he knows that he was not executed, but 
also knows that the reason is because of the time travel that is 
about to take place.

- davenclaw